The AWN Board met on January 9 to discuss plans for the upcoming semester. President Helen Donis-Keller reported that she had mailed questionnaires to the membership as part of her goal of determining whether AWN was meeting the needs of its membership. The questionnaire includes questions regarding the enthusiasm for AWN sponsored programs and publications and asks for opinions on a number of issues relevant to women at Washington University. As AWN enters its fifth year, it is important that we assess our goals and direction. Please provide us with this very important input. If you have not received a copy, call Helen Donis-Keller.

Sue Cullen outlined plans for the spring banquet which will be held on April 26. The speaker will be Shirley Baker, Dean of Libraries at Washington University. Her topic will be the role of women in administration at Washington University.

Last Fall, the AWN Board decided to begin sponsoring university seminars by noted women physicians or scientists. Plans are underway to hold the first of these seminars this Spring. Joan Steitz will be approached as a possible seminar speaker.

The Mentoring/Social Interaction committee is co-chaired by Sondra Schlessinger and Susan Wente. They have made plans to hold two brown bag lunches during the spring semester. The first will focus on a discussion of the clinical track. The second will feature personal histories and insights of senior women faculty at Washington University.

The 1994-1995 AWN Directory has been mailed out to all members. If you have not received your copy, please call Helen Donis-Keller.

A minority group is easily marginalized when only a small presence in a larger population; its continued presence and survival is in constant jeopardy, requiring outside intervention and assistance to prevent extinction. As the group's presence grows, at a particular point the perspective of members of the minority group and the character of relations between minority and majority changes qualitatively. The minority group is able to insure its survival from within in a self-sustaining process. The discrete point at which the presence of a sufficient number brings about qualitative improvement in conditions and accelerates the dynamics of change is known as "critical mass" and has been defined as a strong minority of at least 15%. Change without struggle is less likely than conflict with determined resistance. Under certain conditions, an organizational transformation culminates in minority group members achieving and retaining positions of real power and authority that were previously beyond their grasp.

Etzkowitz et al. studies women in 30 academic science departments to evaluate the effects of increasing numbers on the participation of women in science. A key finding was that as the number of women faculty members increased, they divided into distinct subgroups that could be at odds with each other. Senior female scientists typically shared the values and work styles of older men: their narrow focus failed to meet the needs of most younger women. In contrast, some younger women struggled to create an alternative scientific role, balancing work and non work issues

The authors found that modest increases in the number of women faculty did bring about some change in departments. When senior females were present, overt male behavior toward women improved (for example, invidious public sexual joking and stereotyping declined). However, the attainment of critical mass only partly resolved the dilemma of women in academic departments. The fallacy of critical mass is that female faculty pursue different strategies. Female scientists split into subgroups following one of two paths "the traditional male" and the "relational female" models.

Most women following the male model (based on the social and emotional support structure provided by an unpaid full-time housewife) were from a courageous older generation; it is premature to conclude that academic science has opened up sufficiently to make their stringent approach irrelevant today. Some women scientists have formulated an alternative scientific role and work style based on creating a collegial and supportive environment in their research groups. Viewing science as only one part of their identity, they strive to balance the demands of career and family.

Critical mass was expected to be achieved through affirmative action, to clear up blockages in the pipeline on the premise that a sufficient number of persons from a previously excluded social category will foster inclusion of others from that background. The paradox of critical mass suggests that a significant increase in the number of women in academic science is unlikely to occur simply by increasing the number of women who embark on a scientific career. Encouraging more women to enter the pipeline is fruitless if so few emerge as professional scientists. At each transition point the number of women decreases at a significantly higher rate than for men: For women the pipeline is an exceedingly leaky vessel. The supply side approach needs to be supplemented by a focus on changing the institutional structures where science takes place.

A key factor in overcoming the problems posed by the paradox must be university wide policies and programs regarding child care, parental leave, recruitment and retention.

The ability of departments to defend traditional academic practices as gender neutral should not be underestimated, nor should willingness to reform themselves be overestimated. Unable to reform themselves, outside pressures provide the necessary incentive for most departments. NSF has recently mandated that absence of women at conferences that it funds will be taken as prima facie evidence of discrimination.

Legal action is a final resort. Gender discrimination has now been accepted as a valid basis for law suits challenging academic decisions.

Participation of all groups in society is a basis for the public support of science. NSF director Neal Lane has called upon the research community to act in its own self interest and make a conscious effort "to integrate itself into the larger community: by more closely reflecting the demographic composition of the population. Equal representation of women and men in scientific professions would counter the elitist image of science and hopefully earn increased support for allocation of public resources to science."

In a letter, published in the Dec. 2, 1994 issue of Science, Sheri P. Cole (Dept. of Medicine, UCSD) provided an E-mail address for an on-line discussion group which was established to support women in all scientific disciplines. The aim is to reach all women scientists who feel the need for a connection to other women scientists and to discuss topics of interest to women scientists. Anyone can join the discussion by sending an e-mail letter to sheri_cole@som-bsb.ucsd.edu.

Women's health is at risk in at least two ways: one, because the new Republican Congress has "killed" the Women's Congressional Caucus, and two, the financial cuts ordered by the new Congress may bring about an erosion of the recent gains in Women's health funding.

"It is ironic that one of the first initiatives of the new Republican leadership in 1995 . . . is to abolish the one organization that exists to give women a stronger voice in the policy process," Rep. Patricia Schroeder Caucus Co-Chair, said.

Despite growing numbers, women still represent just 10% of all members of Congress. As a result, women are the overlooked majority when it comes to funding and other legislation that affects them. Since 1977, the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues has provided the predominantly male Congress with vital data on issues that concern women. The Women's Caucus had 160 members in the 103rd Congress--both male and female, Republicans and Democrats. The Caucus has served both as an information clearing house for women's and family issues and as an advocate for legislation to improve the economic position and legal status of women and families. It has been especially effective where women's health is concerned.

Not coincidentally, just when the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues is succeeding in getting more attention for women's needs, come attempts to silence them. Backlash? I think so!

Speaker Gingrich claims Congress must save money and eliminate organizations dominated by special interest groups. But neither reason can explain killing the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. Abolishing the Caucus will not save money. In fact, this move is economically inefficient. The Republicans are not cutting members' expense accounts. They are simply forbidding members from pooling funds to pay staff and publish newsletters that keep members and the public informed about women's and family issues. Since women are 52% of the U.S. population, we are not a special interest group. A more plausible explanation for ending the Caucus is the objective of weakening the voice of this traditionally overlooked majority. One of the most significant contributions the Caucus made was bringing to light and working to correct the discriminatory practices in women's health research and funding.

Women's health is also at risk because with financial cuts or "flat-funding", recent gains in monies for research on women's health might be cut back. For example, the escalating breast cancer epidemic has only begun to receive the attention from government it has long deserved. In 1995, NIH will spend more than $500 million for research on breast cancer, a 17% increase from last year. This might be reduced next year, as Congress might take out protective earmarks for breast and ovarian cancer research. There is talk now that monies allocated in the Pentagon budget for breast cancer research will be cut. "Congress funds what it fears," Rep. Schroeder has explained. Without the Caucus and the women accounting for only 10% of Congress, fear of breast cancer and other women's diseases will once again be low on Congress' list.

From Maine to California, in 10 states, 17 breast cancer survivors are gearing up and rigorously training in preparation for the challenge of climbing the highest mountain in the Western Hemisphere in late January 1995. "Expedition Inspiration" seeks to scale Argentina's Aconcagua--at 23,085 feet, the highest mountain outside the Himalayas--and to raise both awareness of breast cancer and $100 per foot climbed, or $2.3 million. The historic effort was conceived by Laura Evans, a five-year survivor of breast cancer once given a 15% chance of survival. Aconcagua is "the most highly visible symbol we could think of to make people wake up and take notice of what this disease is doing to ourselves and to those we love," Evans said. Proceeds from "Expedition Inspiration" will be distributed by The Breast Cancer Fund, a national non-profit foundation based in San Francisco. The goal of the organization is to help "eradicate the disease within our daughters' lifetimes through innovative and accelerated funding of cutting-edge projects in research, education, advocacy and patient support." For more information call me at 721-8778.

The New York Times reported that according to recent research by the CDCP in Atlanta, only 25% of female high school seniors exercise vigorously on a regular basis, compared with 50% of boys the same age. "Teenage girls feel they shouldn't sweat". . . "most girls don't like to mess up their hair, to get changed or like, you know, be bothered," said one girl. If we consider this information along with Carol Gilligan's work and Naomi Wolf's, The Beauty Myth, there is reason for concern about gender gaps in the next generations.

The Association of American Medical Colleges recently published a report entitled Women in U.S. Academic Medicine Statistics 1994. The report showed that medical school applicants who are women rose to 42% in 1993. In 1993, women comprised 32% of all medical residents. More than one-quarter of the almost 31,000 women residents chose to enter internal medicine, 16 percent chose family practice, 9 percent chose obstetrics/gynecology, and 8 percent chose psychiatry. Internal medicine continues to have the largest number of women faculty but pediatrics and obstetrics/gynecology have the highest proportions of women (38 and 33 percent, respectively.) Of note was the finding that 118 women currently chair medical school academic departments, up from 92 in 1992.

Despite the increases in women entering medical school and residency programs over the last 5 to 10 years, these numbers have not translated into gains for women in the upper ranks of academic medicine. Overall, 23 percent of all male faculty have achieved tenure compared to 7 percent of women. Women comprise only 9% of the full professors and 20% of the associate professors at medical schools. However, 31% of assistant professors and 44% of instructors are women.